Standard Stump Speech by Katie Louchheim
Democratic Party Official and, later, US Department of State Official

National Conference of Jewish Women, Chicago, Sept. 20, 1954

It is a pleasure to be with you today. We all are proud of the excellent work you do and of the education and public affairs programs of the Conference of Jewish Women's organizations. Many other groups could learn from your example.

Today you are indicating your earnest interest in examining political issues. I am delighted to appear with Mrs. Cathcart on this program. I have been advised that she is an able and challenging debater.

I expect we will find we have many differences of opinion so before we begin to enumerate those differences, I think I should point out that we also have many viewpoints in common. We both think our Party is the best Party. We both think our candidates are the best candidates. And, we both want our side to win the election this November. So you see, Mrs. Cathcart and I are in complete agreement up to a point-the point of the pencil in the voting booth and where it makes the X.

I think, too, that we would agree that women play an increasingly important role in politics-not only by getting out the vote but by participating in all kinds of political activity.

We like to think of ourselves as homemakers first-but today's housewife is not only the guardian of her home. In the broader sense, she is the guardian of the future. For a woman's home today is the world.

And if you wonder what you-one lone woman-can do about the world,just consider the atom.

The isolated homemaker, like the untouched atom, remains insignificant. But like the explosive atom, you can expand your energies and change the world.

This November we will have a chance to change the world by going to the polls and voting for the candidates and party of our choice.

But it seems to me that women today have more of a duty than voting. The biggest part of a woman's job is to get out the thought as well as the vote.

Behind the Iron Curtain they got out the vote but they are very careful not to encourage people to think. The thought behind each ballot cast in America is the margin of difference between our elections and theirs.

So often I'm asked what issues women are interested in. My answers is: All the issues. I'm convinced there is no such thing as a woman's issue.

I am certain you will want to know: What is happening to our National economy? To our relations with other countries? To our conservation and welfare programs? You will want to know what kind of people are running for public office and what has been accomplished by this 93rd Congress.

Glittering generalities about peace and prosperity are fine for campaign oratory but they remain meaningless unless the Party in power is prepared to take action. In politics, promises are but daydreams-it is enacted legislation that counts.

In 1952 we had no way of knowing what the Republicans would do. They had been out of power for 20 years.

They promised to do a great many things. They promised a change. Let's take a good look at what has been changed.

First, you'll recall we got the change to a hard money policy. It caused a virtual panic in government bonds and threatened to plunge the entire country into serious trouble. It had to be changed back because it was soon apparent that hard money was altogether too hard to get.

The Republicans did succeed in changing our economy in other ways. In Democratic Administrations we became accustomed to an ever increasing national income-the pie was bigger every year. Not only was it bigger but larger slices were going to the people who needed the most-the average consumer. As their purchasing power grew, prosperity increased.

Now this distribution of income has changed. Payrolls are off seven billion dollars. As a result, the principal consumers are getting a smaller piece of a smaller pie while a larger piece is going to recipients of rents, royalties dividends and high salaries.

What does this mean to the average businessman-not the corporation-the average small business? It means fewer customers with money to buy. It means higher interest rates on loans for the purchase of goods or for renovation. In some cases, it means business failure. In 1953, the rate of business failures rose 70 per cent.

Today there are upwards of three and a half million unemployed and many thousands more are sharing jobs in order to stay on industrial payrolls part-time. Those are people who know that there has been a change.

We're going to hear a lot in the coming campaign about how the Republicans changed the Tax bill. They are taking credit for reducing taxes seven billion, 400 million. The President recently pointed out exactly how much tax relief has gone to the little fellow-to those with dependent children, people who hire baby sitters, retired folks, farmers who practice soil and water conservation, those who can claim depreciation and those who are unfortunate enough to have medical expenses.

We added up those tax relief's and used the President's own figures. We got 821 million dollars. You don't have to be a mathematician to subtract from the 7 billion, 400 million and find you still have 6 billion, 574 million to account for. And you don't need an elephant's memory to recall that nearly 5 million of this difference is tax relief voted by the last Democratic Congress. The rest of it was tax relief which this Republican Congress granted to corporations and the 8 percent of the population who drew dividends.

This, more than anything else illustrates the difference of approach to problems by the two political parties. The Republicans sincerely believe in the trickle down theory. They sincerely believe that if you make the affluent and privileged more affluent, prosperity will surely trickle down to all the rest of us.

Democrats have a different attitude and philosophy on taxation. We believe that taxes should be reduced fairly and equitably for all taxpayers-not just for selected classes of individuals. That is why the Democrats proposed raising the exemption for the taxpayers and his dependents as the basis for tax reduction.

I do not think it fair to question the sincerity of people in either party. I think we must understand the basic difference in philosophy and judge accordingly.

Another example of this difference is evident in the farm program. Although the Republicans did not hesitate to subsidize big business, their Secretary of Agriculture has gone on record that subsidies to farmers are immoral. Why is it that to the Republicans it is immoral to subsidize the farmer and not immoral to subsidize business? The answer lies in Secretary of Interior McKay's statement: "We're here in the saddle of an Administration representing business and industry."

The President, too, enunciates the Republican philosophy when he says he is conservative in economic matters but liberal in human affairs. We Democrats do not understand this kind of a pronouncement. Isn't this a distinction without a difference? We Democrats had always believed the right to earn a decent living is a human affair.

While we're about it, let's see how liberal the Republicans have been in other human affairs. Take our schools. We are hundreds of thousands of classrooms and teachers short. We know that one child in every five goes to school in a fire-trap. What liberal action did the Republicans take? Well- they didn't take any action. They are going to make a study to find out why so many children can't study at all.

In estimating our housing needs, the Administration has been extremely conservative - more conservative than the late Senator Taft. Senator Taft fought before his death for 135 thousand public housing units. Without the strong hand of Senator Taft to support it, the public housing program of he Administration slumped to a mere 30 thousand units. Meanwhile, slums are still gaining on us. High interest rates have made the cost of privately built homes so high that middle income families cannot afford to build them.

The Republicans have made many humanitarian gestures. A typical example of this is the President's proposed health insurance program. This was said to be a measure to help the millions of families who cannot pay their medical bills. But, of course, it wasn't. It was designed to guarantee private insurance companies against loss. Fortunately, the Congress did not even waste its time on this one.

Another much vaunted humanitarian gesture was the bill to admit 214 thousand refugees. It is on the record but so far, because of so much red tape, only a trickle of refugees have been admitted. At the rate we are going, it will take 97 years to admit the entire 214 thousand.

Even the Republicans have told me that the failure to administer this act has lost us friends. To oppressed peoples everywhere, America used to hold out the hope of freedom and opportunity-even to those who would never realize the dream of coming here. But now we have cruelly crushed all their hopes. America no longer has a place in their dreams or their affections.

Meanwhile, the President has really been conservative in economic affairs.

We have seen the Republicans attempt the biggest give away of all times. They have sought to turn over to private industry future control of atomic energy, public grazing lands, public power sites and industrial plants built at the taxpayer's expense.

This is the Republican definition of being conservative but to us Democrats it does not add up to conservation of people's resources.

The issue of foreign policy is certainly one that concerns us all. In no other field have the Republicans been so inept or so divided. Their guiding formula- if they have one-has been to talk tough and carry a twig. The result has been exactly what we might expect. The tough talk has frightened our friends and the twig-the whittled down version of our defense program-has never been a consolation to our enemies.

Under Democratic administrations we built up a careful system of alliances and friendships. We recognized that some of our friends lacked military and economic strength so we initiated a program of assistance which included not only armaments but the means to rebuild their economies. We also had trade programs to stimulate recovery-programs appealing enough to offset the temptation to carry on extensive trade with Russia and Red China.

We have seen the Republican Administration surrender to the GOP protectionists in Congress by abandoning all proposals for lowering tariffs. Foreign aid funds were slashed. Point Four-which had us so many friends-became Point Two and a Half and cut our friendship accordingly.

Republicans in Congress successfully blocked all efforts to establish a forward looking trade program. The most they would give the President was a one year extension of the Democratic reciprocal trade program. Remember in 1952 President Eisenhower said: "Our foreign trade is not just the frosting on our economic cake, but one of its essential ingredients." This is still true - all that's needed now is a Democratic baker.

Speeches by various Republican spokesmen have had the ferociousness of an Indian war dance. They have threatened massive retaliation, withdrawal from the UN, severing of relations with Russia. No wonder our allies are frightened. This kind of talk sounds as if we were willing to plunge into world war three and take everyone with us.

The Chicago Daily News summed it up:

"If you add up all the statements made by Eisenhower, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the military and assorted Republican leaders, the sum total is bluff, bluster, back down and baloney."

The Republicans have played penny-ante with our defense and monopoly with our foreign policy. There has been no bi-partisanship in the sense that Democrats were consulted before policy decisions were made.

When the Democrats were in power, there was consultation with leading Republicans prior to the making of major foreign policy decisions including such programs as aid to Greece and Turkey, the Marshall plan, the North Atlantic Treaty and the decision to intervene in Korea.

The American people have become so accustomed to our having a bipartisan foreign policy that it is hard for many of them to believe that we no longer have one.

There are other things that are hard for people to understand. We couldn't even come close to getting statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, but we have had a Senator from Formosa shouting loudly for a new protective war in the far east. The China lobby and its trigger happy friends might appropriately be classified as the fourth branch of government. Their antics have caused us to lose face first in Indo-China and now in Quemoy.

The sorry state of our foreign affairs puts us in real danger. The two factions of the Republican Party have been so busy fighting about who will seize the initiative in foreign affairs that neither has done so. What we need is a Democratic Congress that will really go ahead and seize the initiative and knows an initiative when it sees one.

At this point, if you will permit, I would like to go from the general to the particular. We cannot discuss issues and ignore candidates. I'm sure you would not expect me to pass up the opportunity to talk about a truly out-standing Democrat-Senator Paul H. Douglas.

He has consistently backed resistance to Communist aggression through as much collective action as possible, through reciprocal trade and by efforts to build strong national defense.

On the home front he has shown a deep and sympathetic understanding for the problems of the farmer, the wage earner and the small businessman. He is, in fact, a trained economist who has foreseen and pointed out the dangers in the Administration's economic polices.

If you will look at Senator Douglas's record, you will find that at all times he has conducted himself as a statesman. Unlike his opponent, he has never been a spokesman for private interests. Paul Douglas is the kind of senator people from both political parties can be proud to have represented them in the Senate.

And let me add that you are doubly fortunate here in Illinois to have so many other fine Democratic candidates. I can't begin to tell you the contribution your Democratic Congressmen have made to the welfare of the nation. I urge each of you to look into their records. I have no fear of urging you to do so for you will find them men of the very highest caliber.

I have tried to outline what I believe are the issues vital to our national existence. I have endeavored to show you how the basic differences between the two parties have been reflected in the course of events. I have not hesitated to point out that we Democrats believe our future is threatened.

As women, you and I are particularly concerned with the future. We do not want to be bungled into either war or depression. We want to continue the spiral of prosperity for all begun under Democratic Administrations. We want the kind of national leadership that promised expanding opportunities for ourselves and future generations.

We know we can afford neither timid leaders who ask hesitantly nor thoughtless leaders who act unwisely. We cannot afford them because they diminish the stature of Democracy in the eyes of the world.

Sometimes we content ourselves with wishing for a better future. We tend to take for granted our great American heritage not realizing the importance of the way we vote or the importance of participation in politics. The right to political participation is one of the many stands of freedom that make up our heritage. To grasp this strand with visible hands and weave it into the fabric of our heritage is to act with bold resolve to mold things nearer to our heart's desire, always seeking a better world.

Copyright information: Gifts of Speech believes that for copyright purposes, this speech is in the public domain due to its dedication to the public by the author. Any use of this speech, however, should show proper attribution to its author.